'; ’ *.*' t • . 


•i;'- .' 

vv ’'. 


'■ i. 

'' ■»■.• 


/■' 


>J. t ^ 0 Jt» 



* -Jr ^ 






Author 



Title 


Imprint 


r ■•■ ■> - ' . •' 


•-••I 'tj 


' ■''vV->^--V^''^;S;4''v -F^'V^ /-VVvKr: 

yy% ■ y:i'■ c- ‘ y,:0'.myir'p:^y a;-:;,,v:7:, 'ssvs,;-;,./. ; 7 ;...: ,7 
0r0\yy^'y\vn . ■;>■,: Vs:';.r;:';-:s?-.7-"'..' 

: ' 00 yy-Ay::'l 0 . ^^, 

"' ■y'y:\-y!'y!-y:yy UVy'0:}y0"y0('' y y 

yy’p^y0 'yy y'i 0'h^y'A00'y0y''"'0'y': '00—' . 

'■■-•■-.-'‘‘f.-’-'.* V-;.,•.<< »'v-- -'■. .j*..■'••.'.•,■■■ i. 

ly'0 

J- '■.■■'.'■■■; ■ V- ■ .-.'Z' \ ■•••'-^5 .- .-F’.W'l- ■’■ /'•••/ -S,''■ ''■ ■ - ^v'.’^v-'i;' t 't 5 : v-’V' - . ■ ; .' 

S ''‘' L , >; k' •'. 'J ■•.■ 1 - • '■ ■', - P • •, t ■ . . ■- ■;••■ ■-•• v s ■< n •,'i, !■:•.•••,• ; ., . , .' ' . 

jVA > ■• . '. ■ . •■■■ 

■. ■'■'•l-••'.■'• Z':*: ^ jw--*'*, ^:. ' ’ • ; ■ - ' 

5 :/r -v-- r'. • ■’a ■•'^■'• 7 '.‘r-'-.i'. > 2 . 'f.;''' .■ *. ;.w■ •■. ' 


16 — 47372-2 


’-. ■ )'■ 































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































JEFFERSON AND PUBLIC POLI¬ 
CIES OF TO-DAY 


Address delivered in Cabell Hall, April 13, 191 1, on the occasion of 
the celebration of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, 
the founder of the University of Virginia 

BY 

J. G. SCHURMAN 

President of Cornell Universiiy 












JEFFERSON AND PUBLIC POLICIES OF TO-DAY.* 


Je;ffe:rson and the: Unive:rsity oe' Virginia. 

The University of Virginia is honored in its founder. This is 
an exceptional circumstance in the history of colleges and uni¬ 
versities. For as a rule it is by these institutions alone, or al¬ 
most always alone, that the names of their founders are per¬ 
petuated and acquire historic recognition and public honor and 
esteem. What do we know of John Harvard and Elihu Yale, 
or even of Ezra Cornell and Leland Stanford, apart from their 
creative munificence to the universities which bear their names? 
By these foundations alone their memory has been rescued from 
the all-devouring ocean of time and oblivion. 

But the founder of the University of Virginia was one of the 
most illustrious men of his time. When only thirty-three years 
of age he had been selected by the wisest statesmen in America 
to write the Declaration of Independence. Three years later 
he was elected Governor of Virginia; and in 1784 he left Con¬ 
gress, which he had re-entered, to become Minister to France. 
Here for five years he witnessed with intense interest the ini¬ 
tial movements and the thickening tragedy of the French Revo¬ 
lution, though the final catastrophe came after Washington had 
called him home to become the first Secretary of State in the 
new Government of the United States. Four years after Wash¬ 
ington’s retirement Jefferson himself succeeded to the presi¬ 
dency, which he held for two terms; and when he retired in 
1809 hosts of his fellow-citizens besought him to become a 
candidate for the third term. But his resolution was unalterable. 
He had already been about forty years in the public service. 
And, in spite of some reverses and some failures, he had been 
pre-eminently the child of good fortune. He retired, says a 
critical biographer, “with a reputation and popularity hardly 
inferior to that of Washington.” If his personal prestige had 
been diminished by his embargo policy, it was still immense. 

*Reprinted from the University of Virginia ArUMNi Bulletin for 
July, 1911. 


[ 3 ] 




“Probably three quarters of the nation believed him the great¬ 
est, wisest, and most virtuous of living statesmen.” 

The University of Virginia was uniquely and almost mi¬ 
raculously fortunate in having a founder of such unchallenged 
merit and such world-embracing fame. Christ Church at Ox¬ 
ford owes its origin to the greatest English statesman of his 
age; but Woolsey fell from power before his darling project was 
well under way, and at Christ Church as elsewhere his glories 
were engrossed by his royal master, Henry VIII. But this Uni¬ 
versity is Jefferson’s sole creation. And in idea and accomplish¬ 
ment it occupied his mind for the long space of forty years. It 
is clear from a letter which he wrote to Dr. Priestly in 1800 that 
the outlines of the scheme were then fully drawn in his mind. 
He did not forget the matter during his presidency, when he 
availed himself of opportunities to get further information. 
After his retirement, the War of 1812 interposed an insuperable 
obstacle to the prosecution of the design, but “from the peace of 
1815 to the dose of his life,” says Parton, “the University of 
Virginia was the chief subject of his thoughts, and the chief 
object of his labors.” 

Jefferson, apart altogether from his fame, was worthy to be 
the founder of a university. A devotee of knowledge, he wel¬ 
comed new ideas with ardor and enthusiasm. Ignorance and 
superstition he deeply felt to be the bane of mankind. He had 
faith in the power of science and scholarship to emancipate and 
enlighten the fettered and benighted minds of men. Knowledge 
he declared to be the condition and the path to progress and 
civilization. In the fine phrase of Heine, Jefferson was a 
genuine knight of the holy spirit of truth. There was nothing 
in the mind and attitude of this eighteenth century statesman 
uncongenial with the latest results of science and criticism. In¬ 
deed, we can not examine his ideas and reasoning without being 
impressed with the note of modernity. In the intensest centers 
of our latest intellectual life and thought Jefferson would have 
been thoroughly at home. Unmoved by the appeals of conven¬ 
tion, tradition, and dogma he was the apostle of reason, and of 
reason alone. 

And the University he set up bears the marks of this ration¬ 
alizing spirit. It was a secular, not a denominational, university. 
And in place of the one arts course, it offered parallel courses, 

[4] 

ly.rtTMin) 

m 


in which, in the words of Ezra Cornell, “any person might find 
instruction in any study.” Expert attainment in their several 
fields was to be the qualification of the professors; and Jefferson 
hoped “to draw from Europe the first characters in science by 
considerable temptations.” Besides suitable emoluments, the 
teaching office was also to be dignified by the independence of 
the incumbents. The students were to be treated as citizens and 
men of honor, without espionage and without boyish restraints. 
And having provided for the members of his academic com¬ 
munity Jefferson insisted that they should be domiciled in build¬ 
ings worthy of Virginia and nobly reminiscent of the classic 
architecture which he so enthusiastically admired. 

Even after the experience of a hundred years, during which 
university education in America has been revolutionized, what 
programme better than Jefferson’s could you to-day adopt? 
Earnest students, thrown on their own sense of honor and right, 
pursuing the studies they need or desire; professors distin¬ 
guished by their abilities and attainments, and honored for their 
devotion to the intellectual life; courses of study embracing all 
branches of human knowledge and adjusted to the demands of 
the different pursuits and vocations of life; and, finally, halls of 
instruction and houses of residence as substantial and beautiful 
as the skill of mechanics and the art of architects can make 
them,—at once things of use and beauty to facilitate the life and 
form the mind and taste of successive generations of students 
and public monuments to report our age to the ages that shall 
be, as to us the architecture of Oxford and Cambridge enshrines 
the spirit of many centuries of English history. For my own 
part I should be ready to accept with very little adaptation or 
modification Jefferson’s conception of a university in its en¬ 
tirety and in all its applications—human, educational, and archi¬ 
tectural. 

Je:ffkrson’s Faith and Trust in the Masses. 

Has Jefferson’s political philosophy stood the test of time as 
well as his educational philosophy? 

I cannot undertake here and now to answer this question ex¬ 
haustively. But there are certain aspects of it which I think 
we may profitably consider in the short time allotted to the ad¬ 
dress with which you commemorate Jefferson’s birthday. “The 

[ 5 ] 


penalty which a great man inflicts upon the world,” says Hegel, 
‘'is that it compels it to understand him.” And the immunity 
which a great man enjoys is that his fame is secure. In examin¬ 
ing Jefferson’s political philosophy, therefore, we need not hesi¬ 
tate either to praise or to criticize, for nothing we can say will 
alter the intrinsic greatness of the man or affect the popularity in 
which public sentiment has for a century enshrined his name. 
For the rest, all I shall attempt is to answer the modest inquiry 
how some part of Jefferson’s theory of government looks after 
a development of one hundred years and in the light of the ideals, 
demands, and experiences of the present day. 

The central point in Jefferson’s political philosophy was his 
trust in the masses of the people and his devotion to their inter¬ 
ests. In this respect he was a born democrat. His enemies, in¬ 
deed, called him a demagogue, but the title was undeserved, for 
Jefferson was a most sincere friend of the common people. He 
not only served them, as other politicians have done before and 
since, but he respected them, he believed in them, he shared their 
views and ideals, and he was convinced they would make a wise 
use of their power and influence in the republic. If Jefferson 
had been a time-serving politician the public would have soon 
detected him; but he held the confidence and the affection of the 
great masses of the American people as no other mere civilian 
leader has ever done, and to this day the reverence with which 
they cherish his memory is the best evidence of their faith in 
his honesty and sincerity. For any parallel you must go back 
more than two thousand years to Pericles and the Athenians. 

No contemporary of Jefferson’s shared his democratic senti¬ 
ments. The founders of the Republic and the framers of the 
constitution in general felt a profound distrust for the multitude. 
The checks and balances of the constitution are in large part 
restraints imposed by the classes upon the masses. The people 
could not be trusted to elect a president, so an electoral college 
was devised for the purpose. The people, indeed, were given 
representation in the House of Representatives, but the powers 
of that body were strictly limited, and an aristocratic Senate 
was provided to check any undue leanings to democracy. The upper 
classes of society were also further protected by the property 
qualifications for voting which at that time universally prevailed. 
It occurred to no man then living save Jefferson alone to drop 

[ 6 ] 


his plummet into the vast depths of humanity beneath the glit¬ 
tering surface and to discern in its movements the source of the 
currents of the nation’s life. In that countless and disregarded 
multitude Jefferson placed his faith and hope. Not only would 
they in time outvote and overcome the select classes who sup¬ 
ported Hamilton, but by their influence the government would 
become an agency for the execution of the people’s will in¬ 
stead of an agency for curbing and frustrating it. The people— 
the vast multitude—had the right to govern; freedom consisted 
in exercising the right; and their government would be wiser, 
juster, and more expedient than any other government that 
could be devised. Jefferson considered Americans superior to 
Europeans in freedom and dignity of mind and he attributed this 
to the circumstance that in America things were “under the 
control of the common sense of the people.” 

The; Nee;d oe* L^de;rship. 

Such was the political faith of this trustful and enthusiastic 
humanitarian. It was certainly an easy way to introduce an 
ideal commonwealth on earth. But however roseate may have 
been Jefferson’s expectations of the result, it can not be denied 
that he correctly forecast the democratic developments of the 
constitution. That the people of the United States would them¬ 
selves ultimately control their government Jefferson with an in¬ 
sight quickened by sympathy clearly divined. What he did not 
foresee—what his humanitarian enthusiasm prevented his seeing 
—is the fact that unrestricted democracy, inevitable as it is in 
America, and just and proper as it is in itself, is not so much 
the solution of the great problem of government as the formu¬ 
lation and challenge of a new problem which imperiously calls 
for solution. 

The greatest difficulty in government is to find wise leader¬ 
ship. Jefferson inevitably became leader of the party he created, 
and he handed on the leadership to his lieutenants, Madison and 
Monroe. All this was so natural that it went on almost uncon¬ 
sciously and automatically. Hence the problem of leadership 
simply had no existence for Jefferson. He took it for granted 
that the multitude would always select for leaders men of the 
highest character, of the most eminent ability and the most en¬ 
lightened and comprehensive intelligence. I need not say that 

[7] 


the history of our politics has falsified this flattering expectation. 
As a rule our political leaders do not rise above the average of 
their followers. And where poverty and ignorance abound this 
average is deplorably low. In this fundamental regard democ¬ 
racy has not worked as Jefiferson blinded by thoughtless though 
generous enthusiasm assumed that it would work. And yet 
without able and reliable leaders democracy is a ship without a 
rudder exposed to all the dangers of the sea and tempest. But 
when a master pilot, like Jackson or Lincoln, grasps the helm, 
how magnificently she rides the troubled waters! 

Jefferson’s Opposition to a Strong Government. 

Another characteristic feature of Jefferson’s political system 
was his opposition to a strong central government. ^Xet the 
general government be reduced to foreign concerns only,” he 
said, “reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inex¬ 
pensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few 
servants.” Jefferson dreaded an efficient government as an 
enemy of freedom; and with him freedom was a religion. To 
assure the rights of man, he would minimize the functions and 
weaken the power of government. He was so hostile to govern¬ 
mental control that he came perilously near to anarchy. And 
this was not a philosophical tenet of abstract reason, but a faith 
and doctrine of the heart and feelings, which he proclaimed with 
the religious fervor of an apostle. Opposing theories, therefore, 
became heresies of the deepest dye. The centralizing tenden¬ 
cies of Federalism were to him anathema. Hamilton, in his per- 
fervid imagination, became the evil genius of the new 
government. Hamilton and his friends were denounced as 
“monocrats” bent on the establishment of monarchy. Washing¬ 
ton remonstrated that “there might be desires, but he did not 
believe there were designs, to change the form of government 
into a monarchy.” But nothing could dispel from Jefferson’s 
mind the belief in a monarchical conspiracy, of which Hamilton 
was the head and front. And Hamilton’s great financial 
measures seemed to him only engines of influences for the de¬ 
struction of popular government. What place, we may ask, was 
there for a Hamilton in Jefferson’s conception of the Union as 
a mere league of independent powers united for the single pur¬ 
pose of intercourse with foreign nations? 

[ 8 ] 


In August, 1800, Jefferson had declared that “the true theory 
of our constitution is surely the wisest and best: that the States 
are independent as to everything within themselves, and united 
as to everything respecting foreign nations.” And in 1803 as 
President of the United States Jefferson purchased Louisiana 
from Napoleon! He himself declared that there was no war¬ 
rant in the constitution for his action. And he advised that 
“whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be 
done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so far as 
respects the constitutional difficulty.” Yes, indeed, the less said 
about the “constitutional difficulty” the better. For the inexora¬ 
ble logic of facts had swept away Jefferson’s abstract doctrine 
of the limits of the federal government. In purchasing 
Louisiana he had performed an act of the highest statesman¬ 
ship. Yet the performance was as centralizing in its nature and 
effects as any of the measures for which he had so recently de¬ 
nounced Hamilton. 

But Strong Gove^rnme^nt Can Be under Popular Control. 

There seems to be no real foundation for Jefferson’s conten¬ 
tion that a government to be free and popular must be a weak 
and inefficient government. Liberty is indeed a great blessing 
and worth much sacrifice to procure. But it does not follow 
that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” or that 
“the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with 
the blood of patriots and tyrants.” On the contrary, there can 
be no liberty worthy of the name without security of life and 
property. And to safeguard life and property, to maintain 
order, to assert justice, to protect the weak and defenceless 
against aggression, a strong government is absolutely essential. 
But in a republic like ours, this government is the people’s own 
government, and to the people it is responsible. A government 
vested with all the powers necessary for the prompt and efficient 
discharge of its functions will not be a menace to the liberties 
of the people in a republic in which the people themselves set 
up their government and watchfully and sternly hold it to ac¬ 
count. I am not pleading against Jefferson for undue or un¬ 
necessary centralization of power in the central government. I 
am only pointing out that in our democratic system, under the 
control of public opinion, the government may be given all the 

[9] 


power which is requisite for prompt and efficient action without 
any danger to individual rights or liberties. 

HamiIvTon’s Viot of Democratic Government. 

The financial policy of Hamilton, which Jefiferson so bitterly 
opposed, had for its supreme object the strengthening of the 
federal government. That government was very much weaker 
than Hamilton had desired to see it. In the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention he had advocated an aristocratic republic modeled on the 
English monarchy under which the powers of the states should 
be greatly curtailed. President and senators were to be elected 
by the propertied classes and were to hold office during good be¬ 
havior, while governors of states, with a veto on state legisla¬ 
tion, were to be appointed by the President of the United States. 
Hamilton believed that the government established under the 
constitution was too democratic to endure, and his distrust was 
deepened by the occurrences of the French Revolution. But as 
a patriotic and practical statesman he felt in duty bound to sup¬ 
port it. And as Secretary of the Treasury he would do his best 
to invigorate its powers. He sought by his financial policy to 
bring to the support of the new government, without regard to 
political parties, the existing class of men of wealth and sub¬ 
stance. He would fund and consolidate all the debts of the 
United States resulting from the war and use the new issue to 
bind the propertied classes to the government by the strong ties 
of pecuniary interest. A national bank was a second important 
provision of Hamilton’s financial policy. The report on manu¬ 
factures was its culminating feature. As constitutional authority 
for these policies Hamilton invoked the implied powers of the 
constitution. Jefiferson, who afterwards as President added 
Louisiana to the Republic, thought him an enemy of the consti¬ 
tution and a monarchical schemer. Yet as The Federalist had 
already demonstrated, and as these very financial measures were 
later to prove, Hamilton was the most efficient friend the con¬ 
stitution has ever had. 

Jefiferson and his followers railed against the capitalists who 
had been brought to the support of the government. They de¬ 
clared that the South and agriculture were sacrificed to the 
North and trade. They held Hamilton responsible for the 
speculative mania which followed upon the success of his finan- 

[ 10 ] 


cial measures. And Jefferson reiterated his doctrine that the 
Union was simply a league of sovereign states united for inter¬ 
national affairs. Nevertheless Chief Justice Marshall accepted 
Hamilton’s reasoning, and the Supreme Court recognized the im¬ 
plied powers of the constitution. What a large part that doc¬ 
trine has played in the development of the United States as a 
nation need not be considered here. 

Would Jefferson Be a Strict Constructionist To-Day? 

As the constitutional developments of Jefferson’s day turned 
on the theory of implied powers, so the constitutional develop¬ 
ments of our own time center on the interstate commerce clause 
of the constitution. One wonders whether, if living to-day, Jef¬ 
ferson would be as strict a constructionist as he was a hundred 
years ago. It is true that when he demanded that the general 
government should be “reduced to foreign concerns only” he did 
not overlook “commerce, which (he said) the merchants will 
manage the better the more they are left free to manage for 
themselves.” But our experience is that trade and commerce, 
when “left free to manage for themselves,” in this age of science, 
invention, and organization tend to become monopolistic and op¬ 
pressive. They are apt to extort exorbitant prices from the con¬ 
suming public, who, in the absence of competition, have no way of 
protecting themselves. The federal congress has legislated against 
such monopolies in restraint of trade; and the federal executive 
is enforcing that legislation. As a rule the masses of the people 
approve of this policy; the opposition is confined to capitalists and 
promoters. I venture to hazard the opinion that if Jefferson were 
living to-day, his love of liberty, his hatred of oppression, his fer¬ 
vent democracy, his devotion to the interests of the vast inarticulate 
mass of the American people would lead him to set statesman¬ 
ship above political consistency as he did when he stretched or 
ignored the constitution and authorized the purchase of Louis¬ 
iana. Broad construction of the constitution was in Jefferson’s 
day embodied in a rival party leader and it inured to the benefit 
of the aristocratic classes. To-day parties do not divide on the 
doctrine of broad or strict construction, and the beneficiaries of 
anti-trust legislation are the consuming masses of our popula¬ 
tion. Hence Jefferson, the father of democracy and apostle of 
liberty, might to-day insist on a strong and active central govern- 

[ 11 ] 


ment for the protection of the rights and interests of the general 
public against the aggressions, real or possible, of consolidated 
capital and monopoly. The welfare of the people is the supreme 
end, and government, whether weak or strong, is only a means for 
its accomplishment. There was also a prejudice of Jefferson’s 
which would have inclined him to stretch the constitution for the 
benefit of the people in general. He had a special aversion to mer¬ 
chants. “Merchants,” he wrote, “are the least virtuous citizens, 
and possess the least amor patrice” How could such a 
statesman have advocated a strict construction of the constitution 
in company with the merchant princes, financiers, and multi¬ 
millionaires of to-day? 

Separation op Legislative and Executive Departments. 

In his own day, however, Jefferson claimed for the states 
every power not expressly yielded by the constitution to the 
general government. And the next item in “the Jefferson 
system in brief,” as formulated by Parton, is the demand “that 
the three great departments of the Government, Congress, the 
Executive, and the Judiciary, should each keep to its sphere, 
neither of them encroaching upon any of the others.” 

As members of Washington’s cabinet Jefferson and Hamilton 
each charged the other with exercising influence on members of 
Congress. “I have long seen,” says Hamilton in a letter to 
President Washington, “a formed party in the legislature under 
his (Jefferson’s) auspices, bent upon my subversion.” And in 
a similar letter Jefferson wrote that Hamilton was guilty of 
“creating an influence of his department over the members of 
the legislature” and securing “the votes of the very persons, who, 
having swallowed his bait, were laying themselves out to profit 
by his plans.” Hamilton made no secret of his interference 
with Congress; he evidently regarded himself as parliamentary 
leader of the administration. Jefferson on the other hand never 
posed as a leader. He expressed opinions, made suggestions, 
dropped hints to his friends. He was a mysterious influence 
rather than an aggressive power. When President, Congress 
obeyed him without knowing he had given orders. He led the 
people because they trusted him, and they never suspected he 
was leading them. In personal supremacy over his followers 
he has never been matched by any other President or by any 
other political leader. 


[ 12 ] 


Party Government Unites Legislative and Executive 
Departments. 

When Jefferson and his followers controlled the executive and 
legislative departments of the government, what harm was there 
in practical recognition of that fact? Why should they attempt 
to keep separate two departments whose harmonious action was 
necessary for the best administration of the government and the 
best interests of the party which occupied and controlled them? 
The shibboleth of the separation of the executive and legislative 
departments, though solemnly proclaimed as a part of the Jef¬ 
fersonian creed, was actually ignored in Jefferson’s administra¬ 
tion. And this was inevitable. A great party leader, like 
Jefferson, is followed by the members of his party, even by those 
who happen to have seats in Congress—nay, especially by those 
who have seats in Congress. 

In no other way is responsible leadership possible. Parties 
are an essential element of our government. If the chief execu¬ 
tive does not lead his party, then an extra-constitutional agency 
will be set up to lead it, and this agency will dominate both the 
executive and legislative departments of the government. As 
this power is an usurpation in its origin, so is it irresponsible in 
its operations. This is the way the boss gains his power. And 
bosses, or irresponsible managers, are inevitable so long as we 
do not have responsible leaders. And for responsible party 
leadership the one suitable organ furnished by our constitution 
is the chief executive. And if the chief executive leads and his 
party associates in the legislative department follow, the formal 
separation between the two disappears, as it disappeared under 
the leadership of Jefferson. 

Democracy Unites Legislative and Executive Departments. 

The fact is that we have outgrown the constitutional separa¬ 
tion of the legislative and executive departments as completely 
as we have outgrown the constitutional plan for the election of a 
President. Both rested on the recognition of separate social 
classes and interests. Congress represented the states and the 
people; the President, selected by the electoral college, was in¬ 
dependent of both. Under this arrangement, therefore, it was 
as essential that each should keep in its own separate sphere as 
was the case with the King of England and the House of Com- 

[13] 


mons. But democracy has since come into the world. And 
democracy has stripped the King of England of his executive 
functions and vested them in a committee of Parliament known 
as the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Not only has the separation 
of the executive and legislative departments disappeared in Eng¬ 
land, but Parliament has taken over the executive functions and 
through the Cabinet discharges them as long as the party in 
power can command a majority of the House of Commons. 
The administration is constantly responsible to Parliament for 
all its acts, and as the members of the House of Commons are 
elected by the people and the Lords have only a suspensory veto 
on the resolutions of the House, the people really control their 
government. 

In the United States a parallel development has taken place. 
Democracy has set aside the electoral college, which survives only 
as an empty form, and made the presidency truly a representa¬ 
tive institution. Congress represents localities, the President 
represents all the people. Before the democratic revolution, 
which popularized the presidency. Congress was the more im¬ 
portant department of government. And in Congress, as Cal¬ 
houn said, the House was “a much more influential body than 
the Senate.” It was so in Jefferson’s time. In those days the 
Congressional Caucus, in which the House was far more in¬ 
fluential than the Senate, named the candidates for the presi¬ 
dency. This superior prestige was maintained until Jackson 
came and based the presidency upon the will of the people. 
Hereafter the presidency became the organ of national party 
purposes, the seat of party authority, and the motive force of 
the administration. The time predicted by Hamilton had ar¬ 
rived. The time, he said, will “assuredly come when every 
vital question of the state will be merged in the question, ‘who 
shall be the next President?’” 

Nothing could resist the triumphant march of democracy. The 
framers of the constitution meant to set up a government of the 
masses by the classes. They assumed that here, as in England, 
the gentry would control every branch of the government. 
The Federalist asserted that Congress would be “composed of 
landholders, merchants, and men of the learned professions.” 
The House of Representatives had, like the House of Commons, 
the right to originate money bills. But the Senate, as John 

[14] 


Adams puts it, was ^‘to be the guardians of property” and -also 
^*the controllers in turn both of kings and ministers on one side 
and the representatives of the people on the other when either 
do wrong.” The checks and balances of the constitution were 
restraints upon different social classes. The framers of the con¬ 
stitution were especially apprehensive lest the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives should break over the barriers they set up. That 
is why the constitution conferred exclusive privileges upon the 
President and the Senate. And indeed it was the masses of the 
people, whose interests the House was intended especially to 
safeguard, who revolutionized the constitution by making the 
presidency an elective institution. But since that change took 
place, since the electoral college became a rubber stamp, since 
property qualifications for voting were abolished and since in 
consequence. House, Senate, and President alike came to repre¬ 
sent the people either in groups or in their entirety, without re¬ 
gard to social classes or interests, the raison d'etre for separating 
the legislative and executive departments of government have 
entirely disappeared. Meanwhile party organization tends more 
and more to unite these two branches of government. When it 
is done in secret an irresponsible boss controls the government. 
When it is done openly, under the leadership of President or 
Governor, we have responsible party leadership. And so far 
as I can see there is no other way of securing responsible party 
leadership under our system of government. If the elect of the 
people is not the leader of the victorious party his place is 
usurped by a self-constituted and irresponsible boss. 

Othe^r Te:nets or Jerrrrson’s System. 

The remaining tenets of the “Jeffersonian system in brief,” 
as sketched by Parton, may be grouped together. They embrace 
freedom of religion, freedom of the press, free criticism of gov¬ 
ernment, whether just or unjust, and freedom of inquiry and the 
encouragement of the progress of science in all lits branches. 
These are policies to which the American people have always 
been committed and which they have carried out into practice 
both before and since Jefferson’s time. Some of the rest of 
Jefferson’s precepts have been disregarded. Yet they were very 
important features of bis political programme. Economy of ad¬ 
ministration was one of them: “a government rigorously frugal 

[15] 


and simple.’’ Another was anti-militarism: “in peace no stand¬ 
ing army and only just navy enough to protect our coasts and 
harbors from ravage and depredation.” But in no case have we 
departed farther from Jeffersonianism than in setting up a pro¬ 
tective system of import duties. His ideal was “free-trade with 
all nations; political connection with none.” 

President Taft’s argument for freer reciprocal trade with 
Canada and the democratic promise to revise the tariff down¬ 
wards will have the effect at least of turning our faces towards 
Jefferson’s ideal. It is quite possible that these tariff changes, 
while lowering the prices of commodities to the consumer, may 
at the same time involve reductions in the public revenues. 
Meanwhile the expenses of government have in recent years 
risen at a rapid and alarming rate. The general sympathy of 
our people with all peace movements and their advocacy of the 
principle of arbitration may in the end issue in the reduction of 
national armaments. But so long as other great nations main¬ 
tain powerful navies it would not be statesmanship for the 
United States to remain unprotected. And Jefferson’s ideal of a 
little navy to serve as coast guard will be dismissed as chimerical 
by naval strategists who tell us that the first business of a navy, 
when war comes, is to strike the enemy wherever he may be 
found in any of the four quarters of the globe. Altogether, 
therefore, I see no immediate prospect of a return to the simple 
and economical administration of government which Jefferson 
maintained and proclaimed, while the revision of the tariff in 
the direction of free trade may leave us with diminished income 
to meet our steadily increasing expenditures. 

Je^^^fe^rson and the: Income: Tax. 

Purely on the ground of financial necessities, therefore, an in¬ 
come tax may soon become a part of our fiscal system. And that 
the tax rests on intrinsically sound considerations seems to be 
demonstrated by its recent acceptance as a permanent part of 
the fiscal system of Great Britain and its adoption in France, 
Germany, and other countries in Europe and elsewhere. The 
fact is that the general property tax, so far as the vast entirety 
of intangible property is concerned, is practically evaded; and 
taxes on consumption fall most heavily on the poor and on per¬ 
sons of very moderate means. The result is that those who are 

[ 16 ] 


best able to pay escape with relatively the lowest taxes. The in¬ 
come tax, as a supplement to the existing system of taxation, is 
a way to correct this injustice. It is a result of the struggle for 
social and fiscal justice in democratic communities in which, as 
universally happens, the more prosperous and influential classes 
had thrown the heaviest burden of taxation on those least able 
to bear it and least able to make their protests effective. In the 
United States the wealthier classes, under existing conditions, 
are bearing a relatively diminishing share of the burden of public 
taxation. The justification of the income tax is that it is the 
only way of redressing that inequality and restoring a just 
equilibrium between the fiscal burdens of all classes of our citi¬ 
zens. For justice, as Plato long ago set forth, is the soul of the 
republic. And a democratic republic cannot long endure if the 
masses of the people feel that its rich men are not contributing 
their fair share to the maintenance of the government. Such a 
condition to-day exists among ourselves. Go among the me¬ 
chanics in our great cities or among the farmers in the country 
and you will hear the same discontented protest. The national 
tariff imposes a disproportionately heavy tax on the expenditures 
of the poor; the state and local systems of taxation fail to reach 
the personal property of the rich; shall they not then be supple¬ 
mented by an income tax, as an adjunct to our tax system, which 
shall require every one to pay in proportion to his ability with 
the exemption of a reasonable minimum for the requisite means 
of subsistence? I have no doubt that with his great sympathy 
with the inarticulate masses of the people and his devotion to 
their interests Jefferson would have answered this question in 
the affirmative. Furthermore, there is no blinking the fact that 
the emergence and development of the income tax has coincided 
with the spread of Jeffersonian democracy throughout the world. 
For this reason I have no doubt that the income tax is inevitable 
in the original home of democracy. The constitutional and po¬ 
litical obstacles which have retarded the progress of this fiscal 
reform amongst ourselves will somehow be removed. Our 
written constitution was made for the welfare of the people. 
And while it may delay, it cannot prevent, the fulfillment of the 
democratic demand for social and fiscal justice. 

The stock argument against the income tax is that it is 
inquisitorial. In all the European countries which have adopted 

[17] 


it this objection had to be met. And it was urged a generation 
ago in England with tremendous effect. But two circumstances 
may now be cited as disposing of it. In the first place experi¬ 
ence has demonstrated that these inquisitorial terrors are largely 
imaginary. And, secondly, the British government, in the course 
of their somewhat prolonged experience, have hit upon a method 
of collecting the income tax which disposes, in large part, of the 
necessity of consulting individuals about their incomes. Instead 
of collecting the tax from the individual they collect it at the 
source from which it flows to the individual. This is known as 
the stoppage-at-source method of collection. And the careful 
calculations made by the French government prove that three 
fourths of the revenues to be expected from the French in¬ 
come tax would be raised by the stoppage-at-source method. 
American conditions are peculiarly favorable for the operation 
of the stoppage-at-source method of collecting an income tax, 
first, because our investments are almost exclusively domestic 
and, secondly, because so large a portion of our business has as¬ 
sumed a corporate form. I need not here go into further details. 
It is enough to say that probably three fourths of the entire re¬ 
ceipts of an income tax in the United States could be collected by 
this stoppage-at-source method. 


State: and Fe^dkral Taxe:s. 


We may be sure that in dealing with this subject of taxation 
Jefferson would have safeguarded the fiscal interests of the 
states. Those interests are to-day in jeopardy. The states grant 
charters to corporations, and the states tax these corporations. 
The states provide for the devolution of decedents’ property, and 
the states levy inheritance taxes. But these legitimate and in¬ 
valuable sources of state revenues are menaced by the national 
government. In 1909 Congress enacted a corporation tax—a 
tax on the corporate doing of business by state-chartered cor¬ 
porations—and the Supreme Court has unanimously declared the 
law to be constitutional. In the same year there was imminent 
danger of the enactment of a national inheritance tax. And one 
mav venture to predict that if a national income tax is long de¬ 



layed a national inheritance tax will be established. How then 
are our states to live if Congress invades the sources of supply 
of which hitherto the states have enjoyed a monopoly? And be 


[ 18 ] 


t' 


it remembered that at the present time the national finances are 
in good shape, while many of our states—even a state so rich 
as New York—have the greatest difficulty in meeting their 
budgetary requirements. 

The states, indeed, meet with difficulties enough in dealing 
with corporation and inheritance taxes even when Congress 
keeps out of that field. For the taxpayers have a provoking 
habit of escaping these taxes by moving into another state’s 
jurisdiction without any other change in their property or busi¬ 
ness. To meet that difficulty, and to avoid the double taxation 
which will necessarily result from the operation of both state and 
national corporation, inheritance, and income taxes, it has been 
suggested that all three taxes should be administered by the na¬ 
tional government and that the revenues should be equitably ap¬ 
portioned between the nation and the several states,—the states 
perhaps further apportioning a share of their quota to localities. 
In our three-fold system of taxatipn-r-local, state, and national 
—the fiscal rights of localities and states should be carefully 
guarded against the encroachments of their more powerful federal 
partner. There is danger that localities and states will go bank¬ 
rupt if all the richest sources of revenue are shared or monopolized 
by the federal government. 

Jefferson’s Americanism. 

I am sure that this is good Jeffersonian doctrine. And I re¬ 
turn to Jefferson. What is of immense and abiding inspiration 
in the man was his faith in the masses of the people, his regard 
for them, his belief in their wisdom and sense of right. This 
faith is the foundation of our American democracy, though of 
course it does not imply that a majority is either omniscient or 
infallible. Perhaps Jefferson sometimes tended to that extreme 
position. Yet, as Parton justly says, “He had more in him of that 
which makes the glory and hope of America than any other living 
creature known to us. American principles he more than be¬ 
lieved in: he loved them, and he deemed their prevalence essential 
to the welfare of man.’^ 


V 


119 ] 


« 4 


•'i ■' ■ 

y * -■ j- .. . 

>r I •*' . •• 

*y H ■■.'•• • >.. 

r* - •. •... 

\y ., • ' 

,*h' 

^ • V/ m. « ■, ' . 


♦V . - 






V 




/ 




0 


1 


«.i 

< 

't 

■ ■.. ..^ 

i #•' 


. »•» 

^ •« 


>« A 


t I 

■ 4 




























































































































































